Asylum Accommodation Centres: Archaelogical Surveys

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has carried out archaeological surveys by the County Archaeological Office and by English Heritage in respect of the sites identified for development as accommodation centres; if so, whether they will publish the reports; and, if not, when they will commission such surveys.

Baroness Blackstone: It is for the developing agency, not the DCMS, the County Archaeologist or English Heritage, to undertake archaeological surveys to inform proposals for development.
	From the outset of the accommodation centre project, archaeology has been dealt with in accordance with government guidance as set out in PPG 16 Archaeology and Planning. At the site option screening stage, archaeology was one of many factors used to identify sites where an accommodation centre might be developed without significant adverse impact to heritage interests, to preclude other sites where unacceptable impacts would occur and to identify those possible sites where desk studies, field evaluation or other archaeological measures would be necessary.
	Archaeological desk and field evaluation studies have been commissioned by the Home Office for the accommodation centres proposed at Newton, Bicester and Pershore. Field evaluation trenching has also been undertaken at Newton and Bicester, and is under consideration at Pershore.
	At Newton and Bicester the results of the desk and field studies have been submitted as part of the planning notification process, and documentation for Pershore will similarly form part of the planning submission. In due course, if development goes ahead any archaeological investigations in advance of development will be published in accordance with government guidance and archaeological best practice.

Disability Rights Commission

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will empower the Disability Rights Commission to initiate court proceedings concerning human rights.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are considering giving the Disability Rights Commission the power to assist individuals in proceedings under the Human Rights Act. We made this clear in our response to the Disability Rights Task Force's report. However, we want to consider the matter in the light of any recommendations the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights may make on whether there should be a human rights commission and in the light of the project on options for future equality machinery, in particular the feasibility of a single equality body.

Disability Rights Commission

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will implement the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force before considering any changes to the Disability Rights Commission.

Lord Campbell of Croy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to act upon those recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force which they have accepted and which require legislation.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We have said that, in 2004, we will bring employers with fewer than 15 employees within the Disability Discrimination Act and end other employment and occupational exemptions. These changes will bring an additional 7 million jobs, in which around 600,000 disabled people already work, within scope of the DDA as well as a further 1.2 million employers.
	Our manifesto commits us to legislate on other task force recommendations, as indicated in Towards Inclusion, our response to the task force report, as soon as there is parliamentary time.
	We have not made any proposals concerning the future of the DRC but will consult shortly on institutional arrangements which would best support equality legislation in the future.

Public Transport: Health and Safety Commission's role

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What duties and responsibilities the Health and Safety Commission has in relation to investigating instances of unsafe driving in:
	(a) passenger service vehicles and buses; and
	(b) trains; and who is responsible for discharging them.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: (a) The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has no duty to investigate instances of unsafe driving in passenger service vehicles and buses. Primary responsibility for the investigation of instances of unsafe driving on the road rests with the police under road traffic law. However the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) may get involved, if approached by the police, where they have evidence that serious management failures have been a significant contributory factor in an incident.
	(b) The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has no duty to investigate instances of unsafe driving in trains but where appropriate, HSE's HM Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) is able to investigate such instances and, if appropriate, bring a prosecution for breaches of health and safety law.

Public Transport: Health and Safety Commission's role

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Health and Safety Commission considers that the targets set by Transport for London for 70 per cent of bus drivers to be acceptable to inspectors on safety grounds is satisfactory; and whether they consulted before Transport for London reduced the targets from 80 per cent to 70 per cent.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: HSC has not been involved with Transport for London in setting these targets. This local initiative is specific to London. However HSE is involved with the Government's national strategy Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone. This sets out 10-year targets for reducing road traffic casualties. As part of this initiative an independent task group was asked to examine the scale of work-related road incidents and recommend measures aimed at reducing these incidents.
	The task group published its report in November 2001. HSE is working closely with the Department for Transport in taking forward a programme of work which is designed to reduce work-related road incidents. A copy of the group's report and HSC's advice has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Public Transport: Health and Safety Commission's role

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action the Health and Safety Commission is taking following reports that, in the three months April to July 2002, 40 per cent of London bus journeys involved serious driving faults and 3.2 per cent involved dangerous driving faults.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: HSC is not responsible for monitoring the performance of bus drivers, and will not be taking any action on this particular issue. It has no duty to investigate incidents of unsafe driving in passenger service vehicles and buses. However, HSE is working closely with the Department for Transport in taking forward a programme of work which is designed to reduce work-related road incidents. This programme was formulated following publication of the report by the independent Work-related Road Safety Task Group on reducing at-work road traffic incidents. A copy of the group's report and HSC's advice has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Health Professions Council

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What response there has been to the Health Professions Council's consultation paper The Future; and when the council's conclusions can be expected on the issues addressed in that paper.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Health Professions Council (HPC) finished its public consultation on 30 September. Around 3,000 replies were received from various sources including registrants, professional bodies and members of the public. The HPC is now analysing this information and is due to publish the initial feedback in November. It then proposes to publish a draft version of the rules and procedures based on this feedback in December.

NHS: Registered Nursing Care

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What evidence they have received of the exclusion of residents of care homes from any benefit from the introduction of free nursing care; and whether they will be amending the central contract for local National Health Service bodies which states how the registered nursing care contribution should be used; and
	What representations they have had from the Alzheimer's Society about the exclusion of people with dementia from the benefits of free nursing care; and what reply they are making.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We are aware that the Alzheimer's Society has recently issued a briefing paper on this issue. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Health (Ms Jacqui Smith) will shortly be meeting the society's chief executive to discuss the issues raised in the paper and care services for people with dementia.
	The National Health Service has a duty to determine eligibility for NHS funding of care from a registered nurse in a care home. This is done through the directions issued by the Secretary of State for Health and the practice guide and workbook that explains how the registered nursing care contribution should be carried out by nurses, rather than through the model contract. There are no current plans to amend the workbook. If someone disagrees with the decision to place someone in a particular band, they can ask for a review to be undertaken. Ultimately, people also have access to a local continuing care panel to consider this further if necessary.
	People who are currently supported by a local authority, to whom NHS funding will be extended from April 2003, will have the benefit of NHS involvement in their care and improved access to other NHS services. The directions to the NHS that currently apply to those who fund the costs of their care themselves will be amended prior to April 2003 to reflect the NHS's new funding responsibilities for residents receiving care from registered nurses in care homes who are also supported by local authorities.

Human Tissues Act 1961 and Anatomy Act 1984

Lord McColl of Dulwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consult the Royal College of Surgeons of England on the proposed changes to harmonising the Human Tissues Act 1961 and the Anatomy Act 1984, as outlined in the document Human Bodies, Human Choices (July 2002).

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This document was sent to many organisations, groups and individuals, including the Royal College of Surgeons, and we look forward to receiving their response.

Human Tissues Act 1961 and Anatomy Act 1984

Lord McColl of Dulwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the form allowing people to choose to donate their bodies either under the Human Tissues Act 1961 or the Anatomy Act 1984, as proposed by H M Inspector of Anatomy in his letter Donation of Bodies to Medical Science of 28 April 1999.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: A consultative report, Human Bodies, Human Choices, was published by the Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly government on 10 July 2002 as part of the review of the law on the removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue. Among the issues that the review seeks to address are the legal uncertainties concerning the interrelation between the Human Tissue Act 1961 and the Anatomy Act 1984.
	It was because of these uncertainties, as well as the responses from some relatives under an earlier pilot, that Ministers decided not to proceed with a combined donation form that might have allowed people to donate their bodies under either Act.

Abortion

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many abortions have been performed in the United Kingdom since 1967 under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967; how many of these, expressed as a total figure and as a percentage of the total number of abortions, have been performed in order to save the life of the pregnant woman under section 1(1)(c) of the Abortion Act 1967.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In the years 1968 to 2001 inclusive there were 5.3 million abortions reported in England and Wales of which 39,000 (0.7 per cent.) were performed under section 1(1)(c) of the Abortion Act 1967 as amended.
	Abortions performed in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive.